The growing perception that Novak Djokovic is in the vanguard of a new era in men's tennis was strengthened in a final of almost unbearable drama but there is one old soldier not prepared to put his rifle away just yet.

When Djokovic beat Rafael Nadal, who is still only 13 months older than him, for the seventh time in a row to keep his Australian Open title, it was tempting to conclude that such domination might leave the Spaniard a desolate man, doomed to more nights of rollercoaster disappointment. He does not see it that way, and rightly so. His body aches; his spirit roars.

He admitted recently that Djokovic had got inside his head; in splendid defeat he has got that monkey off his back.

While Djokovic, on the statistical face of it, owns Nadal as Nadal has sometimes owned Roger Federer, there was little evidence in the closing acts of one of the best Australian Open finals ever that Rafa was Novak's bunny any more. And that is why Nadal leaves Melbourne happier than his wrecked on-court mien suggested after their record five hours and 53 minutes saga.

Where does Federer stand now? He has played some sublime tennis over the past six months but won the last of his 16 grand slam titles two years ago, here against Murray. He might come again. But where? Not in Paris. Probably not at Wimbledon. Maybe at Flushing Meadows. And will he be around after the Olympics? Maybe not.

Still there is no denying who the boss is now and for the immediate future. The world No1 should have a plus sign next to that ranking because he has again edged away from Nadal and Federer, as well as Andy Murray, the world No4 whom he beat in a fantastic semi-final over five sets on Friday night.

Fittingly there were nearly as many stars in the stadium on Sunday night as in the skies above to witness a wonderful final: Margaret Court, Mark Edmondson (their last champion here), Frank Sedgman, Neale Fraser, Mervyn Rose, Bill Bowrey, Roy Emerson, Ken Rosewall and the greatest of them all, Rod Laver, a guest in his eponymous cathedral.

After a distracted performance in an arena that resembled a dentist's waiting room in the first set and the Colosseum in the fifth Djokovic beat Nadal 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7, 7-5. It was as long as it was brutal as it was magnificent.

How good is Djokovic? After suspicions earlier in his career that he was quicker to quit or moan than fight he has become a formidable gladiator.

In their three defining clashes in majors last year Djokovic was too good for Nadal at Wimbledon, had a tougher time in New York but ultimately was stronger in the shot and here met a markedly rejuvenated foe.

Murray, too, can take heart from the fact that, while Nadal is hunting down Djokovic to the very limits of his physical, tactical and mental capacity in title deciders, he is a more serious threat than he was – significantly so compared with the dispiriting defeat here last year.

Murray got tantalisingly close to Djokovic on Friday night, as he did in Rome (his win over him in Cincinnati came via an injury retirement), and is encouraged in the belief that there is not a lot between them. Well, in one crucial respect there is: five grand slam titles. Until he wins one – in all likelihood by beating the man himself – Murray will have to look up the mountain rather than across the summit alongside his old friend. He is not far away but getting there has not become any easier.

What Murray can draw from Djokovic is the inspiration to get the last drop out of his talent. If that is good enough to win a grand slam title, he and a nation will be delighted. If it is not, so be it. Nobody has a right to victory – as Nadal would no doubt tell him.